Justia U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

After multiple sales of methamphetamine and of a weapon to a confidential informant, Garcia was charged with three counts of distributing 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1); two counts of distributing five grams or more of methamphetamine; and being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and 924(e). Garcia argued entrapment. He was convicted on all counts. The PSR set Garcia’s offense level at 35, with a resulting Guidelines range of 292-365 months, and noted that Garcia was subject to a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence on the firearm count based on three previous convictions for violent felonies.The Seventh Circuit vacated Garcia's 210-month sentence but affirmed his convictions. There was ample evidence that Garcia was not induced but was otherwise predisposed to engage in the illegal transactions. The court rejected an argument that the district court committed plain error in subjecting him to a mandatory minimum sentence because the PSR did not identify the statute attendant to Garcia’s conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm. The PSR, supported by documentation, identifies Garcia’s crime of conviction as aggravated battery with a firearm under Illinois law, which is a crime of violence.The district court committed plain error in using his 1993 aggravated battery with a firearm conviction when calculating his offense level; the district court should not have increased the offense level based on prior convictions for which no criminal history points were awarded. View "United States v Garcia" on Justia Law

Nitzkin was executive director of an Illinois charity that raised about $1.1 million a year. He took home more than $300,000 annually—about half as salary and the rest embezzled. Nitzkin pleaded guilty to wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1343, and was sentenced to 42 months’ imprisonment, a fine, restitution, and supervised release. He challenged the addition of two sentencing levels under U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(9)(A), for offenses involving “a misrepresentation that the defendant was acting on behalf of a charitable, educational, religious, or political organization.” Nitzkin’s argued that he did not “misrepresent” his status as a person “acting on behalf of” the charity and that 2B1.1(b)(9)(A) does not deal with the diversion of funds raised by a legitimate officer of a charity. The enhancement increased his sentence by 8-10 months.The Seventh Circuit vacated the sentence. Application Note 8(E)(i) states: “If the conduct that forms the basis for an enhancement under subsection (b)(9)(A) is the only conduct that forms the basis for an adjustment under 3B1.3 (Abuse of Position of Trust or Use of Special Skill–an enhancement also applied to Nitzkin), do not apply that adjustment under 3B1.3.” The court found no misconstruction of 2B1.1(b)(9)(A), but remanded for a determination of whether the two enhancements reflect different conduct. Even if only one applies, the judge may conclude that a 42-month sentence retains the support of the criteria in 18 U.S.C. 3553. View "United States v. Nitzkin" on Justia Law

Police arrested demonstrators in Rockford, Illinois, seven on Friday and one on Saturday. Winnebago County does not hold bail hearings over the weekend. All eight waited until Monday at 1:30 p.m. to receive a bail hearing, seven were then released either on their own recognizance or on bond. The charges against three have been dismissed; the court sentenced three to probation or conditional discharge. The Friday detainees were held for about 68 hours. The Saturday detainee was held for slightly over 48 hours. Three missed work; one lost her job; one could not seek medical attention for an open wound and bruised ribs while in jail; one endured three days of solitary confinement and was not allowed to take her prescription medication; and one was denied medical attention for a concussion and a bleeding head wound.The detainees filed suit, 42 U.S.C. 198,3 against the Chief Judge and the Sheriff, in their official capacities, and Winnebago County, arguing that the County violated the Fourth Amendment by denying them a bail hearing within 48 hours after detention even though a probable-cause determination had been made within that period. The district court denied a class-certification motion and dismissed the suit. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Precedent dictates that only a probable-cause determination must be held within 48 hours; as a matter of first impression, the court held that the Fourth Amendment does not require a bail hearing within 48 hours after arrest. View "Mitchell v. Doherty" on Justia Law

Each of the plaintiffs has been convicted of multiple sex offenses involving children. Wisconsin law requires some sex offenders to wear GPS tracking devices for life, even after they have completed post-confinement supervision, WIS. STAT. 301.48. The tracking device is attached to an ankle bracelet. The tracking data is not monitored in real-time; officials review it about every 24 hours to determine if an offender has been near a school, a playground, or another place that might raise a concern. The plaintiffs alleged that the statute violates their rights under the Fourth Amendment and sought a preliminary injunction.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, noting that it addressed section 301.48 in 2016 and upheld a provision that imposes lifetime monitoring on sex offenders who have been released from post-prison civil commitment. Applying the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness standard, the government’s interest in deterring recidivism by dangerous offenders outweighs the offenders’ diminished expectation of privacy. Any differences between the 2016 plaintiff and these plaintiffs are too immaterial to make the earlier holding inapplicable. View "Braam v. Carr" on Justia Law

Sarno headed a criminal enterprise for several years. When a rival organization tried to encroach on Sarno’s territory, he sent a pipe bomb that exploded outside its headquarters. In 2010, Sarno was convicted of conspiring to participate in racketeering activity and conducting an illegal gambling business. He was sentenced to 25 years in prison and ordered to pay $1.8 million in restitution.In 2020, Sarno sought compassionate release. Then 62 years old, he has severe osteoarthritis in his shoulder and knee, preventing him from walking, bathing, dressing, or using the toilet on his own. He frequently falls when trying to transition into and out of his wheelchair. This immobility compounded the disabling effects of his respiratory disease, obesity, hypertension, and kidney dysfunction. On multiple occasions, Sarno had to be transported to outside medical facilities for treatment of acute health problems.The district court assumed Sarno’s poor health constituted an extraordinary and compelling reason to grant compassionate release but determined early release would be inconsistent with the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors, considering the seriousness of his offenses, his extensive criminal history, and danger to the public. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting Sarno’s arguments that the court erred in weighing the factors and failed to discuss his evidence, and that inability to communicate with his attorney at a critical point prevented him from disputing certain inaccurate government assertions. View "United States v. Sarno" on Justia Law

Haas believes that Jews are responsible for crimes against humanity, that Israel is “the biggest racist organization on the planet,” and that anyone who supports Israel or Jews is a traitor who deserves to die. After posting death threats against former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley on her Instagram page, Haas was visited by diplomatic security officers. He reiterated his violent message during that conversation and then posted vile, anti-Semitic statements on a Russian social media website. An FBI agent questioned him about the new threats, but Haas made threats against the agent via texts and voicemails. He was convicted for transmitting threats in interstate commerce and for the threats against the FBI agent and was sentenced to 51 months in prison.The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Only a multiplicity challenge to the indictment was properly preserved. The allowable unit of prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 115 is the individual threat, not some broader scheme or plot to threaten. After a “fact-intensive inquiry,” the court concluded that the individual threats were properly charged separately. Contentions that the government’s evidence was insufficient to support the verdict, that the indictment was constructively amended, and that some counts were improperly grouped for sentencing, were all forfeited and do not undermine the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Haas" on Justia Law

After passengers in a car shot two people, the police approached a car matching the description given by witnesses. The car sped away but crashed into another car. Three men, including Burnett, got out and ran. At least one passenger carried a gun. Police pursued two of the men and caught Burnett; they found two different brands of ammunition in his pockets, matching that found in two loaded guns tossed during the foot chase. Police later determined that the gun in the alley where police arrested Burnett and the gun from the backseat of the car were fired during the shooting. Burnett pleaded guilty under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). The court applied a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(1)(A), reasoning that, even if Burnett did not personally possess the three guns, all three were attributable to him as relevant conduct because they were used as part of joint criminal activity and Burnett had aided and abetted the others in possessing them.The Seventh Circuit affirmed Burnett’s 110-month sentence. The district court could permissibly infer that, even if not fired, the gun was still involved in the broader events around the shooting. The district court could reasonably infer that Burnett intended to aid his associates based on his continued participation in the crime during and after the shooting. View "United States v. Burnett" on Justia Law

An FBI informant provided a cell phone number for Lewis, a distributor in a drug-trafficking operation. The government obtained a tracking order under the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. 2703(d). Cell-site location information (CSLI) from Lewis’s cell phone provider showed that his phone was within a 1,099-meter radius of Greenwood, Indiana. From there, officers searched parking lots and hotels where a deal might take place. Officers eventually saw a woman resembling Lewis’s wife enter a room at a hotel, drop off a duffel bag, and drive away in a car registered in Lewis’s name. After a drug-sniffing dog alerted at the room, officers obtained a search warrant. The team executed the warrant the same day. Inside the room, officers found Lewis, $2 million in cash, and 19.8 kilograms of cocaine.The Seventh Circuit affirmed Lewis’s conviction for possession with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. The court rejected his arguments that the dog sniff violated his reasonable expectation of privacy or, in the alternative, that the application for the section 2703(d) order lacked probable cause. Lewis lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the hotel's exterior hallway, where the dog sniff occurred. Regardless of whether the government’s use of real-time CSLI amounted to a search, the good-faith exception applies. View "United States v. Lewis" on Justia Law

Tinimbang invested $811,400, founding Donnarich Home Health in 2005 with his then-wife Josephine and their children. In 2006-2007, the others forced him out of management; Tinimbang maintained his equity position. Josephine and their son, Richard, later incorporated two healthcare businesses: Josdan and Patient Home; some of the funding came from Donnarich’s assets. Tinimbang later asserted that he was not compensated for those asset transfers or for his removal as Donnarich’s president.Josephine and others were charged with conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud (18 U.S.C. 1349) and conspiracy to launder the proceeds of healthcare fraud and unlawful payments for patient referrals (18 U.S.C. 1956(h)) by using Donnarich and Josdan to fraudulently bill Medicare and creating shell companies to deposit checks. The government sought the forfeiture of assets involved in or traceable to the conspiracies. Josephine fled. Guerrero, an employee, pled guilty and agreed to forfeit assets. The district court entered a preliminary order of forfeiture.Tinimbang asserted a claim to the assets by instituting ancillary proceedings, citing his investment in Donnarich, his removal without compensation, and the allegedly improper transfers from Donnarich to Josdan and Patient. Tinimbang did not provide any financial tracing. The government “reviewed the movement of funds” and did not trace any of Tinimbang’s investment to the forfeiture assets. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the government. Tinimbang had not carried his burden to show a vested or superior interest in the forfeited assets at the time of the criminal acts. View "United States v. Tinimbang" on Justia Law

In 2004, Watkins was convicted of possessing crack cocaine with intent to distribute. He received a mandatory life sentence based on three prior convictions for “felony drug offenses.” After multiple unsuccessful collateral attacks, Watkins filed this 28 U.S.C. 2241 petition, citing the Supreme Court’s 2016 “Mathis” decision and arguing that two of his prior convictions did not qualify as predicate felony drug offenses under 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A), so his enhanced sentence was unlawful. Following enactment of the First Step Act of 2018, Watkins applied for relief under that statute, was resentenced to time served, and was released from prison. He is currently serving a reduced term of supervised release.The Seventh Circuit remanded with instructions to dismiss the 2241 petition as moot. Watkins can only speculate that Watkins might benefit from a decision on the merits; the mere possibility that a decision might influence the court’s determination on remand concerning his term of supervised release is not enough to keep the case alive. Intervening case law, combined with the government’s concession, should be more than enough to make clear in any future section 3583(e) proceedings that Watkins was not properly subject to a mandatory life sentence. View "Watkins v. United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois" on Justia Law